Replying to LO25155 --
Dear Organlearners,
Judy Tal <judyt@netvision.net.il> writes:
>To a certain degree I see an analogy between Turing's
>Machine (a lot more can be told about this machine,
>Alan Turing and even A. Church) and what we actually
>do as we are learning (be-coming): We reveal TRUTH
>by our deeds - and NATURE provides us with feedbacks,
>one at a time.
Greetings Judy,
I have seldom read a sentence like the last one in the quote which, every
time I read it, send shivers down my body. Thank you for saying so much
in so few words. It reflects your wisdom.
Is it not queer that when I say "It reflects your wisdom" that actually I
am using some of my own thoughts to connect to what you have written? The
proposition "I connect with some of my own thoughts to the wisdom
signified in what Judy has written" is true for me. In other words, it is
a fact for me.
It also seems to be an innocent proposition. But as soon as I attempt to
give the thoughts refered to in that proposition a descriptive name, it
suddenly seems to have become devious and cunning for many a learner.
Observe how fellow learners will respond to the modified statement "I
connect with some of my own wisdom to the wisdom signified in what Judy
has written". Is it not that I claim to have wisdom self by making use of
a sentence which actually signifies Judy's wisdom? Why does this modified
proposition appear to be so preposturous for many a learner?
I think it is because the indignant learner self makes use of a
MOST important, TACIT thought which is TRUE as can be. I
will try to articulate this thought by the proposition
"Truth emerges within the mind to stay within that mind".
What the indignant learner did, was to compare this tacit
thought (which is a fact for that learner) with another tacit
thought which I will try to articulate with the proposition that
"At de Lange has imported into his mind the true message of
Judy's proposition".
Now where has this latter thought came from? The learner
created it self according to another MOST important, TACIT
thought which is TRUE as can be:
"To learn is to create"
The possibility which the learner created is that At de Lange may
have imported the true message of Judy's proposition rather than
it having emerged within At de Lange self is more than enough
reason to drive many a learner into indignation.
The creative, western mind established two powerful disciplines
IN ADDITION to what happens tacitly in the mind to evaluate a
proposition as either true or false, namely logic and science.
Powerful as they are, neither is able to evalute the proposition
"Truth emerges within the mind to stay within that mind".
as true. But what will happen when we connect the whole of
science and the whole of logic? Jan Smuts argued with his
holism that two wholes will transcend together into a more
complex whole which will be more than the sum of the two
wholes. And here Judy Tal comes and talks about this
outcome in such a beautiful manner:
"We reveal TRUTH by our deeds - and NATURE
provides us with feedbacks, one at a time.
Logicians like Kurt Goedel and Alan Turing gave us reason to suspect that
no logical system will be able to evaluate a message like Judy's or my two
above as true -- logical systems are incomplete and cannot halt when
encountering any one of them. Scientists like PAM Dirac and David Boehm
gave us reason to suspect that science will also not do -- measurements
destroy potential information in the wave packet too fast.
Thus it seems that we will have to fall back on what we had originally and
which we wanted to assist with logic and science to settle issues with,
namely "creativity within the mind". But then we are right in the midst of
all the issues which we wanted to resolve with logic and science!!! So how
will we resolve these issues?
I prefer to call these issues "authentic problems". They are problems of
which the solution to each require a more complex level of thinking than
the level which allowed us to perceive the problem and articulate it.
Einstein was very sensitive to "authentic problems". On the other hand,
"rote problems" are problems of which the solution to each can be created
in the same level of complexity which allowed us to perceive the problem
and articulate it. It is these problems with which our educational systems
deluge the minds of learners. What a tragedy.
Let us use Jan Smut's holism again to understand science and logic some
more. When a person (a whole) "works creatively" through a set of
measuring instruments with any whole in the rest of nature, these three
wholes transcend into a complexer whole which is more than the sum of the
three parts. This complexer whole is called science. When a person (a
whole) "works creatively" through a set of symbolic
expressions/articulations with any whole thought in his/her mind, these
three wholes transcend into a complexer whole which is more that the sum
of the three parts. This complexer whole is called logic, sometimes
refined into "symbolic logic".
Now here comes the "snag". Both scientists-/-logicians insist that
science-/-logic has to be repeatable. It means that whenever a person does
science-/-logic, that person has to communicate the "HOW to work
creatively" so that any other person can COPY this "HOW to work
creatively" and thus repeat the other person's "working creatively" so as
to examine the outcome once again. I prefer to call it a "snag" because
when the copying of the "HOW to work creatively" becomes habit, the
authentic science-/-logic immerges into rote science-/-logic. Hence, in
order to sustain authentic scienc-/-logic, there must be at least one dare
devil who "works creatively" unlike all other scientists-/-logicians
before. In other words, there must always be a scientist-/-logician who
has no peers, who became the first of many yet to become.
The very histories of science-/-logic show how often this "first becomer
without no peers" had to pay a heavy price self so as to sustain the
authenticity of science-/-logics. Why? We may call it "paradigm
fixation". But we can also delve deepere into its fixation (lack of
dynamics). It is caused by the HABITUAL COPYING of the 'HOW to work
creatively", something which I have dared to name some time ago in our
LO-dialogue as RMB (Rote Mental Behaviour). This means that eventually one
dare devil must become who has to warn in the "HOW to work creatively" --
"you may copy me, but never make it a habit".
The word "paradigm" comes from a Greek word which meant "example". Most
people, even scientists-/-logicians, need examples so as to become peers.
But the "first becomer without no peers" needs no example because of
revealing the example self. It is they who manifest so clearly the seventh
essentiality of creativity, namely openness ("paradigm-open"). It is they
who had opened themselves up who often have to pay the price for having
done so.
Authentic science-/-logic requires that there has to be from time to time
a "first becomer without no peers" who has to exemplify a novel "HOW to
work creatively". What does this "from time to time" mean? There has to be
a person for each level of complexity who first have to manifest the Law
of Requisite Complexity for that level of complexity. It means that this
person has to reach maturity in that level of complexity so as to emerge
constructively into the next higher level of complexity so as to explore
what was closed to humankind up to that unique manifestion.
It seems as if I have now established science-/-logic as the "holy grail".
No, it is not the "holy grail". Both science-/-logic begin with an
individual, one person who "works creatively". Humankind has now almost
exhausted the possibility for individual accomplishments so much that
science-/-logic have to be advanced by teams rather than individuals. But
by not keeping the original reason for science-/-logic in mind, these
teams often exemplify even more horrendous RMB.
Science-/-logic help two or more person's to recognise the TACIT TRUTH
WHICH HAS EMERGED IN EACH OF THEM while working creatively as individuals.
The other avenue which was less systematically explored up to now, is
TACIT TRUTH EMERGING IN ALL OF THEM while working creatively together as
an organisation. Yes, Learning Individuals have now to be omplemented by
Learning Organisations in order to sustain the evolution of authentic
TRUTH. More and more humans are reaching the requisite level of complexity
do it systematically. Should we fail to respond, we will immerge
destructively because of increasing chaos.
Let me once again explain with Smut's holism what we will have to do in
future. In science it was one person (a whole) "working creatively" with
another whole (a system from nature). In logic it was one person (a
whole) "working creatively" with another whole (a human artifact with a
symbolic nature). In each case also the "HOW of working creatively" had to
be supplied so that other persons, one by one, could repeat the scientific
or logic outcome. What we have to explore now is one person (a whole)
"working creatively" with another person (a whole).
Yes, it has been done for millenia. But somehow we never realised how
essential it is for the persons who have to "work creatively" together to
become each a whole person and sustain that wholeness as a requisite level
of complexity. Jan Smuts was but a voice calling in the desert. What will
we get when two or more persons, each a true whole, "work creatively"
together? A Learning Organisation.
When thinking of the wholeness of every person, I often want to cry
because the most serious destroyer of the wholeness of a person is another
person. Humans are the greatest danger to other humans. Allow me to recall
the words of DA Aikens et al ("Integrated Experimental Chemistry") in
chapter one ("Laboratory Safety"). I had to dig it up because I cannot say
it better and had too many close experiences lecturing in chemical
laboratories to be any wiser. After several pages of extensive
articulations of safety rules, they end short and sweet with the last
rule:
. 14. The prime cause of accidents is a lack of
. forethought. Think before acting. Be aware of
. your neighbour's activities because his[/her]
. carelessness may be your undoing.
May I add that the Creator has created the "living universe" as the
laboratory for us as humans in which to learn. This last rule of Aikens et
al applies even to this laboratory. Let us take utmost care not to undo
any human, not any other human and not ourselves.
In the words of the true Master -- Love your neighbour as much as you love
yourself.
We are now becoming a global village through Internet in which anybody is
everybody else's neighbour.
>I used "we" meaning myself and people like me - nobody
>should take it personally ;-))
I take it personally and it has been a great joy to do so ;-)
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.